Calling the Autoshite Youth: 90's rep-mobiles, close to classicdom?

[Pete-M]

I'm still of the old school where when I buy a car, when I get it home I go over it to make sure everything is working as it should. Normally on a modern that will involve checking for any codes and resetting any systems that may need it. Then if no codes have returned over aw week or so I'll put the car through an adaptation cycle to let it compensate for the fact that most garages never bother.

 

Then it's just a case of plugging it back in every few months and seeing if anything has flagged up. If not, leave it alone.

 

It's when people ignore things that aren't working properly that the shit hits the fan. If there's a warning light on then it's obvious something needs fixing, but people ignore them "it's driving fine / Mot next month / I had it serviced 6 months ago" and when it really starts to play up they lie to the mechanic "Light came on last week, then it started rattling" when it has been on for six months.

 

Can't blame the car when it's the drivers that are often the faulty bit.

[Dick Cheeseburger]

My mk2 Golf is 23 years old. Although it feels old compared to a brand new car, it doesn't feel that old - comfortable, reliable, not very rusty and still looks half-respectable in the parking lot. It's pretty good to drive, too. 

I worked out that the Morris Minor I owned in the 1990's was, at the time, the same age as the Golf. The Moggie was a bundle of fun, but felt like an old car compared to everything else - metal bumpers, rwd, seats made of rusty springs and cheap fake leather, holes in the floor, slow compared to lots of other vehicles and old-fashioned looking styling. It was a classic car at the time, despite its age.

 

I can't quite get my head around that the Golf is the equivalent age. I'm assuming that it's because the modern hatch formula hasn't changed particularly since the early 80's - comfortable interiors, fwd, plastic bumpers and trim, reliable drivetrains, electric gizmos, generally not huge issues with rust (compared to 1970's cars and older). I wouldn't say my Golf is classic like the Moggie; retro yes, classic no. 

 

Not really sure where I'm going with this. Maybe I'm getting old...

[forddeliveryboy]

I'll agree with Pete-M above: it's the sensors and stuff that cause the problems

 

What I was meaning was where Pete-M had said...

 

Still trying to find out where Pete mentioned sensors and stuff causing all the problems, but I guess I know what you were thinking...

 

What us slightly older ones have found is that the less there is to go wrong on an old car, the better. Having welded, re-bored, re-ground, fettled, painted and so on, then having to tackle the electronics systems is just one more hurdle - and one which requires a totally different set of skills, another barrier in the way. Given the choice of two good cars, one with just two little black boxes, one to run the ABS and the other to give a reliable spark (and with a separate wire from each dashboard switch to its component), the other with canbus and a multitude of pcbs running everything from central locking to windscreen wipers, the choice is fairly obvious for many. If garages struggle to find faults on newish machines, even when the fault-finding software should tell them what's failed, how are people going to manage when there are worn mechanical components confusing the picture, corroded connections and a quarter century of general muck and rot?

 

 

Given the choice I would much rather have RWD. That may be because I grew up driving RWD cars - Escorts, Sunbeams, Capris, Cortinas, but in a huge triumph of marketing over intelligence there aren't many small RWD cars left. MX5, GT86, 1 series being the only ones that spring to mind.

 

Ford lost the plot rather seriously in the 80s. The Sierra was good in certain specs: Cosworth, XR4x4, 2.0iS. The Escort Mk3 looked better than in it was. Capri was too old - in the rest of Europe it was killed off a lot earlier than here. Granada was acceptable.

 

Then Ford remembered what had made their stuff fun and finally put it back. Strangely enough with FWD cars - they must have been learning about them at night school or something. .. The Ka drove really well, the Puma 1.7 is a hoot and the Focus Mk1 (petrol engine) is a better drive than anything else in its group.

 

The 1930s Citroëns and the like have never appealed to me. Mainly because they're FWD. Never been a huge fan of FWD.

 

 

Wasn't suggesting that fwd makes a car good - I also prefer rwd, if the car's a good 'un.

 

I was just pointing out what helped make a Focus ride and handle so well - Ford could have done that back in the seventies but they knew their customer base didn't think they needed such a well-mannered, pleasant car. It's Ford's huge cynicism in delivering a seriously sub-standard product to sell to those who imagined a Ford was all they wanted, which amazed me when I started driving them for a living.

 

I guess I chanced on the company as an impressionable teenager and the cynicism has had a lasting effect. I just couldn't believe people were buying Fords when there was so much else for sale, many times better, and for similar money. But then I'm interested in cars, and whether or not there's a Main Dealer just round the corner matters little, whereas for many I suppose that's was a big selling point.

 

I know a guy who worked for them back in the sixties at Dagenham, as junior management in the spares division. They priced a water pump, say, according to how much the same part cost for a rival car - if this was less than it cost them to make, then so be it (and engineering would commence immediately to make it cheaper) and if it was priced many, many times more than it cost to make, then that was a good earner. From what this bloke says, Ford were the only company who used this practice - everyone else simply put x% profit on top of the cost of manufacture and distribution. Some would say this is very clever business practice, others would question the ethics.

[The Reverend Bluejeans]

Fords were rarely bad cars. The Cortinas, Capris and even the much derided Mark 5 Escort were all acceptable to the average motorist and that was good enough.

I see a well worn and faded red K reg Mondeo now and again. I'm transported back to summer 1993 when I valeted and delivered cars for a Ford dealer and found the Mondeo to be quite astonishingly good. When I was doing lots of long trips I would rent cars and insisted on a Mondeo and that cemented my respect for them. They once gave me a new M reg 1.8 Passat that was one of the very worst cars I'd driven - absolutely dismal.

 

1300 Escort Mark 2's were okay. Safe handling, servoed discs, fairly brisk and that rifle bolt gearchange. It wasn't an Alfasud but very few cars were that good. I still see them as £600 cars though.

 

I personally don't give a shit about classic status. Old and interesting is where it's at.

[Junkman]

Granada MKIIs were downright good.

[Ghosty]

Another point:

 

Jag X300 does nothing for me and seems like a low-spec, average car.

XJ40s are great.

[AnthonyG]

I agree that there's a lot more difference between a 20 year old car now and a 20 year car 20 years ago. I would argue that a 1994 Corsa or Mondeo is just a lot less remarkable now than a Viva or mk3 Cortina was in the early 1990s. The 20 year old cars back then were a lot rarer for a start.

 

As for investments, it's going to be the sporty versions that will attract interest first. The sporty Saxos are a good call, as are unfucked standard spec Imprezas. Mondeos? Well a early Si in that awesome yellow (Citrine) would be a icon of sorts. The most obvious one to lay away would be the limited edition ST200 from circa '99. A Rover 620 Ti would be worth keeping as well, if there are any left.

[catsinthewelder]

My mk2 Golf is 23 years old. Although it feels old compared to a brand new car, it doesn't feel that old - comfortable, reliable, not very rusty and still looks half-respectable in the parking lot. It's pretty good to drive, too. 

I worked out that the Morris Minor I owned in the 1990's was, at the time, the same age as the Golf. The Moggie was a bundle of fun, but felt like an old car compared to everything else - metal bumpers, rwd, seats made of rusty springs and cheap fake leather, holes in the floor, slow compared to lots of other vehicles and old-fashioned looking styling. It was a classic car at the time, despite its age.

 

I can't quite get my head around that the Golf is the equivalent age. I'm assuming that it's because the modern hatch formula hasn't changed particularly since the early 80's - comfortable interiors, fwd, plastic bumpers and trim, reliable drivetrains, electric gizmos, generally not huge issues with rust (compared to 1970's cars and older). I wouldn't say my Golf is classic like the Moggie; retro yes, classic no. 

 

Not really sure where I'm going with this. Maybe I'm getting old...

 

Don't forget that by the end of production in the 1970's the Morris Minor was already getting close to being a classic car due to a very long production run.  Anything sold alongside it in the early 1950's was classic by then.

[HH-R]

My Metro (20 years old this year) and my 5 year old Panda are surprisingly similar to drive. Visibility even isn't that different though obviously the Metro is better. The only way the Metro really feels older is because it is much higher mileage and things are starting to feel a bit sloppy.

[philsford]

I would agree with the st200 if you can find one with arches. These early STs may be a very wise move as the ST owners club may well be the future in the ford scene as time goes by and the lack of RS models will probably see the RS owners club fade away into a smaller club simlar in size to the AVO club maybe thus meaning in 20 years the STs will be big money as RS models are now. I am a member of the RS owners club of some 8 years now but without new models in considerable numbers I don't see how it can continue as it is now. I think the size of the club and the amount of shows they put on have helped inflate the prices along with ebay of course and if the guys running the ST owners club make a simlar job of it the results are surley going to be simlar. I realise the STs are built in great numbers but so were RSs back in the 70s and 80s which only leaves me pondering how much the few remaining RSs will be worth in another 20 years.

[Pete-M]

Another point:

 

Jag X300 does nothing for me and seems like a low-spec, average car.

XJ40s are great.

I see it exactly the other way. The X300 XJR I had was one of the best cars I've ever owned. I wouldn't have an XJ40 personally, but Mr Rustbucket's one is damn nice.

 

As for STs, I reckon the Focus ST170 will be sought after in a few years. Rare for a Focus and I think they look pretty good, especially the rare estates. Mine is a well used 5 door, but I wouldn't be surprised if I saw it at a show in 15 years. Restored, obviously. It's a Ford. That's what always happens.

[CortinaDave]

When I bought my mk3 cortina in 1999 it inspired nostalgia everywhere I took it, turned heads and got comments.

 

If I was running the equivalent age ford now.. Say a G plate sierra sapphire... I doubt it would get so

much as a glance from most.

[Cavcraft]

VW campers are worth stupid money now and theyw ere about as poor as a Mk1 Escort, so it is proof that a badge alone will inflate the value of very humdrum cars.

It's not even because (modern-ish) Fords or VWs are any better than anything else on the market either, it's just because once the first few hopelessly over-priced ones have come onto the market in 5 years time, then a 'false economy' will be created and anyone with a Golf or Focus of any sort will think it's worth three times what it actually is. Sadly this strange effect will probably work and buyers will also believe the hype.

Good luck to them, their money, their choice, but it'll be just like Mk1/2 Escort syndrome, whereby cars a lot of people wouldn't piss on if they were on fire are ramped up in value. I wouldn't want one at todays prices, never mind what they'll fetch in five or ten years time  

[Sloth in a bowl]

So back to the original post, are 90's rep mobiles close to classicdom? No but they will get there.

 

Some 90's sports cars have turned the tide and are becoming proto-classics now such as the Alfa GTV and Spider

It will move onto the hero cars, Subaru rally replica's, BMW M cars, Volvo T5's, then over the years it will creep to the lesser models.

 

Not every car can be a classic until after they are long forgotten by the man in the street, only those that were lusted after when new tend to get saved in numbers.

[Pete-M]

I think its hero cars first. Then hot hatches, then sports cars, then anything immaculate, then eventually any old crap.